Karwar, February 13: The iron ore theft case at the Karwar port took an interesting turn on Saturday with Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officials visiting the port office and the port officer, Capt. C. Swami, not to be found.
Subsequently, the investigating officials pasted a notice on the door of the office, asking Capt. Swami to be present before them with all the necessary documents on Tuesday.
If he fails to do so, it will be presumed that he has nothing to produce before the investigating agency.
The CID officials took over the investigation of the case from the local police on Friday.
In March last, forest officials seized iron ore from the port premises and it was handed over to the Karwar port officer. But in June, forest officials filed an FIR (no. 154/10 under sections of 409 and 379) in the Karwar Town police station alleging that the 50,000 tonnes of iron ore seized by them was “missing” and had been allegedly exported.
Though the Belekeri and Karwar theft cases had come up together, the Belekeri case was handed over to the CID in June last year.
Dilly-dallying
The State Government decided to hand over the Karwar port case to CID after much dilly-dallying.
On Friday, CID officials visited the Karwar port and the port office. They reportedly called Capt. Swami to be present before them . According to sources, Capt. Swami told them on phone that he was available at the office. However, when the CID team visited the office, he was not there. Despite repeated calls, Capt. Swami failed to turn up. Sources close to Swami said that he would present himself before the CID only after getting legal advice.
On Saturday morning, the CID team led by Bheemaih, Superintendent of Police, and N. Mohan Rao and Muddumahadevayya, Deputy Superintendents, visited the port office again and waited for Capt. Swami. When he failed to turn up, a notice was pasted on the door of the office. Mr. Rao is the investigating officer in the case.
Setback
In a related development, the CID suffered a setback in the Belekeri port theft case when a local court rejected the charge sheet produced by the CID. The court said that the charge sheet was not in order and the CID had failed to produce relevant documents.
Comments
Add new comment